BY THE COURT
time limit within which to appeal a ruling on a motion to
correct an illegal sentence, filed pursuant to K.S.A.
22-3504, is 30 days after the entry of judgment.
motion for additional findings of fact under K.S.A. 2016
Supp. 60-252 or a motion for a rehearing under K.S.A. 2016
Supp. 60-259 is timely if filed within 28 days of judgment,
and the effect of such timely filed motions is to toll the
time for filing an appeal.
the sentencing judge announces that the current sentence is
to run consecutive to a sentence previously imposed in a case
that the judge identifies by case number only and the record
reflects that there is only one case in the defendant's
criminal history assigned that announced case number, the
resulting sentence is not ambiguous.
sentencing judge is authorized to order the current sentence
to be served consecutive to a previously imposed underlying
misdemeanor sentence upon which the defendant is on probation
at the time of sentencing notwithstanding that a revocation
proceeding in the misdemeanor case has not been completed.
Without running afoul of due process, a district court has
the authority to summarily deny a K.S.A. 22-3504 motion to
correct an illegal sentence without a hearing and may
summarily assess the adequacy of its findings of fact and
conclusions of law memorializing the summary denial without a
from Saline District Court; Jared B. Johnson, judge. Opinion
filed June 2, 2017. Affirmed.
E. Wells, of Jerry Wells Attorney-at-Law, of Lawrence, was on
the brief for appellant.
Hurst Mitchell, county attorney, and Derek Schmidt, attorney
general, were on the brief for appellee.
Swafford appeals the Saline County District Court's
summary dismissal of his fourth K.S.A. 22-3504 motion to
correct an illegal sentence. Swafford was sentenced in 1993
to life in prison for felony murder and a term of 15 years to
life for aggravated robbery; the sentences were ordered to be
served consecutively to each other and to sentences imposed
in separate cases in Saline and Geary counties. Swafford
contends that the sentencing judge's pronouncement of
consecutive sentencing was ambiguous and that the judge was
prohibited from ordering the sentence in this case to be
served consecutively to the underlying sentence in Geary
County because a probation revocation proceeding was still
pending in that county. Swafford's arguments are
unavailing; the district court is affirmed.
and Procedural Overview
and two others brutally beat and killed a motel night clerk
during an armed robbery. In 1993, a jury convicted Swafford
of felony murder and aggravated robbery. District Judge
Daniel Hebert imposed a life sentence for the felony murder,
and 15 years to life for the aggravated robbery. See K.S.A.
21-4501(a) (Ensley 1988) (life sentence for Class A
felonies); K.S.A. 21-4501(b) (Ensley 1988) (sentencing range
for Class B felonies). The district court ordered the
sentences to be served consecutive to each other and
consecutive to sentences previously imposed in separate cases
in Saline and Geary counties. Additionally, Judge Hebert
recommended that authorities defer consideration of parole
beyond Swafford's initial date of parole eligibility.
convictions and sentences were affirmed on direct appeal.
State v. Swafford, 257 Kan. 1023, 897 P.2d 1027
(1995). Since then, Swafford has been very litigious,
including the filing of K.S.A. 22-3504 motions to correct an
illegal sentence in 2001, 2006, and 2010, all of which were
denied. Swafford was unable on appeal to obtain relief from